If you reply to this long (16 kB) post please don't hit the reply button unless you prune copy of this post that may appear in your reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
****************************************** ABSTRACT: In response to my post "News Reports on 'Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance', " [Hake (2008)], Diane Grayson of the PhysLrnR list wrote: "I am reading a very interesting book called 'Why Aren't More Women in Science?' edited by Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams. . . . ." I give more information on that valuable book as gleaned from "Gender Issues in Science/Math Education (GISME)" [Mallow & Hake (2008)]. ****************************************** In response to my post "News Reports on 'Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance', " [Hake (2008)], Diane Grayson (2008) wrote: "I am reading a very interesting book called 'Why Aren't More Women in Science?' edited by . . . . . [psychologists]. . . .Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams, and published by APA in 2007. . . .[the APA <http://books.apa.org/books.cfm?id=4316085> gives the publication date as 2006]. . . . It contains a number of essays based on empirical studies that address differences between male and female participation and performance in science originating from a variety of sources, including biological and social." An annotated reference to Ceci & Williams (2006) - see APPENDIX below - appears in Part 1 of Hake & Mallow (2008), along with 11 other hits on "Ceci." In addition, on Ceci's homepage <http://www.human.cornell.edu/che/Features/bio.cfm?netid=sjc9> appears a reference to "A framework for explaining the underrepresentation of women in mathematically-intensive science" [Ceci et al. (in press)]. Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University 24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/> <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/> ". . .the important distinction. . .[between, e.g., education and physics]. . . is really not between the hard and the soft sciences. Rather, it is between the hard and the easy sciences." David Berliner in "Educational research: The hardest science of all," Educational Researcher 31(8): 18-20; online at <http://www.aera.net/publications/?id=438>. REFERENCES Ceci, S.J., W.M. Williams, & S.M. Barnett. In press. "A framework for explaining the underrepreentation of women in mathematically-intensive science," Psychological Bulletin <http://www.apa.org/journals/bul/description.html>. Grayson, D. 2008. "News Reports on 'Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance', " PhysLrnR post of 9 Aug 2008 15:42:44+0200; online at <http://tinyurl.com/5q6rlh>. To access the archives of PhysLnR one needs to subscribe, but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on <http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html> and then clicking on "Join or leave the list (or change settings)." If you're busy, then subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under "Miscellaneous." Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list! Hake, R.R. 2005. "Cross-Posting - Synergistic or Sinful?" Post of 1 Nov 2005 08:37:12-0800 to ITFORUM and AERA-L. Online at at <http://tinyurl.com/2m59v4>. Hake, R.R. 2007. "Over Sixty Academic Discussion Lists: List Addresses and URL's for Archives & Search Engines," online at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/ADL-L.pdf> (640 kB), or as ref. 49 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>. Hake, R.R. 2008. "News Reports on 'Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance', " online as it appears on the OPEN AERA-L archives at <http://tinyurl.com/6kosg8>. Post of 8 Aug 2008 to AERA-C, AERA-D, AERA-H, AERA-J, AERA-K, AERA-L, AP-Physics, ARN-L, ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, EdResMeth, EvalTalk, Math-Learn, Math-Teach, NetGold, Physhare, Phys-L, PhysLrnR, POD, RUME, STLHE-L (abstract only), TeachEdPsych, TIPS, & WBTOLL-L. For a guide to discussion lists see Hake (2007). For a defense of cross-posting see Hake (2005). Hake, R.R. & J.V. Mallow. 2008. "Gender Issues in Science/Math Education (GISME)": Over 700 Annotated References & 1000 URL's: *Part 1 - All References in Alphabetical Order <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/GISME-5t-Part1.pdf> (8.5 MB); *Part 2 - Some References in Subject Order <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/GISME-5t-Part2.pdf> (4.8 MB). Because periodic updates of GISME necessitate changing the URL's, an address that will always work is "Reference 55 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>." XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX APPENDIX - References taken from Part 1 of Hake & Mallow (2008) Benbow, C.P. & J. Stanley. 1980. "Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact?" Science 210: 1262-1264; online at <http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/SMPY/ScienceFactOrArtifact pdf> (1.1MB): Benbow, C.P. 1988. "Sex Differences in mathematical reasoning ability in intellectually talented preadolescents: Their nature, effects, and possible causes," Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11:169-232; online at <http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/SMPY/BBSBenbow.pdf> (33 MB). Benbow's 15-page article, pp. 169-183, is followed by (a) 35 pages of "Open Peer Commentary," pp. 183-217; (b) 9 pages of Benbow's response, pp. 217-225; and (c) 8 pages of References, pp. 225-232. ************************************************* Ceci, S.J. & W.M. Williams, eds. 2006. "Why Aren't More Women in Science?: Top Researchers Debate the Evidence" American Psychological Association (APA), publisher's information, including the Table of Contents, is at <http://books.apa.org/books.cfm?id=4316085>. For an interview with Wendy Williams regarding this book see Phillips (2008). The APA wrote: "Why aren't more women pursuing careers in science, engineering, and math? Is the lack of women inthese fields a consequence of societal discouragements, innate differences in ability between the sexes,or differences in aspirations? These questions always spark a host of other questions-and a multiplicity of answers-all of which have important implications for gender equality and for retaining the nation's competitiveness in the technological marketplace. The most reliable and current knowledge about women's participation in science is presented in this collection of fifteen essays written by top researchers on gender differences in ability. The essayists were chosen to reflect the diversity and complexity of views on the topic, about which knowledge has been accumulating and evolving for decades. The editors provide an introduction that defines the key issues and embeds them in historical context and a conclusion that synthesizes and integrates the disparate views. Written accessibly to appeal to students and non-specialists as well as psychologists and other social scientists, the contributors reframe this key controversy and challenge readers' emotional and political biases through solid empirical science." For reviews see "Women in STEM Careers" [Reilly (2007b)] and "Women In Science: Can Evidence Inform the Debate?" [Linn (2007)]. See also "Women in Academe, and the Men Who Derail Them" [Williams (2002)]. ************************************************* Kimura, D. 2007. "Under-representation" or Misrepresentation?" in Ceci & Williams (2007); online at <http://www.sfu.ca/~dkimura/articles/Ceci%20Essay.htm>. Kimura wrote: "The Scholastic Aptitude Test- Mathematics (SAT-Math) has consistently over several decades yielded an advantage in High School age males. The participants selected for Benbow's (1988) studies of mathematically precocious youth (SMPY) have consistently shown a greater number of males. Even within this select group of boys and girls the average scores of boys are higher. The ratio of boys to girls at the high end of the distribution of scores is about ten to one. . . . .[our insert - according to Monastersky (2005), the ratio in 2005 was 2.8 to 1]. . . . In the Putnam competition, open to all undergraduates in North America, what data we have suggests a huge preponderance of males who get the higher scores, even correcting for the larger numbers of male applicants. To date, all the recipients of the Fields medal, a prestigious award in mathematics, have been men." Linn, M. 2007. "Women In Science: Can Evidence Inform the Debate?" Science 317(5835): 199 - 200, 13 July, review of Ceci & Williams (2006); online at <http://tinyurl.com/4fltw3>. Linn wrote: "The chapter by David Lubinski and Camilla Benbow [LUBINSKI & BENBOW (2006) - here and below, our CAPITALIZED references] is one of several that mentions the 1980s talent search by Benbow and Julian Stanley. . . .[BENBOW & STANLEY (1982)]. . . . ., in which they recruited students under 14 to take the SAT and found that for scores over 700 (two standard deviations above the mean), the ratio was 13 boys to 1 girl. By 1997, the ratio had dropped to about 4 to 1 [STANLEY (1997)] -it has recently fallen further to 2.8 to 1 [MONASTERSKY (2005)]. These large differences motivate some contributors to criticize others for ignoring the evidence for males' superior abilities in science. In the most dramatic statement, Doreen [KIMURA (2006)] argues that giving special scholarships or grants exclusively to women "bribes them to enter fields they may neither excel in nor enjoy." Lubinski, D.S. & C. Benbow. 2006. "Sex Differences in Personal Attributes for the Development of Scientific Expertise," in Ceci & Williams (2006). Monastersky, R. 2005. "Women and Science: The Debate Goes On: Primed for Numbers - Are boys better at math? Experts try to divide the influences of nature and nurture." Chronicle of Higher Education 51(26): A1, 4 March; online at <http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i26/26a00102.htm>. Monastersky writes: "Data from [Julian Stanley's] program, at Johns Hopkins, shows just how strong the cultural factors are in determining math achievement. In the early 1980s, he and [Camilla Benbow] reported. . . [Benbow & Stanley (1980)]. . . . a whopping disparity in the numbers of mathematically gifted boys and girls who scored 700 on the math section of the SAT at the age of 13, a distinction achieved by one in 10,000 students. A quarter-century ago, there were 13 boys for every girl at that level. NOW THE RATIO IS ONLY 2.8 TO 1, A PRECIPITOUS DROP THAT HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED IN THE NEWS MEDIA. [Our CAPS.] 'It's gone way down as women have had an opportunity to take their math earlier,' says Mr. Stanley." Phillips, A.L. 2008. Interview with Wendy M. Williams regarding Ceci & Williams (2006). American Scientist Online <http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/an-interview-with-wendy-m-williams> : " 'Why aren't more women in science?' This question, which serves as the title of a new book edited by Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams, has inspired intense debate in the media and among scientists and the general public. Responses range from the polemical to the well-considered; Williams and Ceci hope to refocus the debate with evidence-based ideas. In their new book, subtitled Top Researchers Debate the Evidence, they present essays from contributors including Simon Baron- Cohen, Janet Shibley Hyde, Doreen Kimura and Elizabeth S. Spelke, among others. The result is a thought-provoking, challenging collection that covers topics ranging from neural substrates for sex differences in cognition to cultural bias against women and other sociocultural forces. The book won a bronze medal in the 2007 IPPY (Independent Publisher) Book Awards." See also "Women in Academe, and the Men Who Derail Them" [Williams (2002)]. Reilly, M. 2007b. "Women in STEM Careers" [Review of Byers & Williams (2006), Marzabadi et al. (2006), & Ceci & Williams (2006)], AWIS Magazine, Spring, online at <http://www.awis.org/pubs/documents/AWISmagSpring2007.pdf> (2.8 MB), scroll to page 45. Stanley, J.C. 1997. "Amazing academic achievement, "Johns Hopkins Magazine 49(4): 6, September; online at <http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0997web/letters.html>. Stanley wrote: "The facts are as follows: in 1981 there were 28 boys and no girls who in SMPY's annual search scored 700 or more on SAT-M before age 13. That was a low year, however. In 1980 there had been 15 boys and 5 girls. The usual male-to-female ratio at that score level nowadays is about 4 to 1. During the early 1980s it was 12 to 1, so girls appear to be doing increasingly better compared with boys -- but have not nearly caught up with them yet." Williams, W.M. 2002. "Women in Academe, and the Men Who Derail Them," STATUS, January, online at <http://www.aas.org/cswa/status/statusJan02c.pdf> (1.2 MB), scroll to page 10. --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
